Kaine's interrupting had been exasperating from the outset of last night's debate, but Pence annoyed me by resisting the question, praising his own religiosity, and then going on about his favorite religious issue, abortion.

Pence's answer had nothing about any balancing of personal faith with public policy. Kaine had something quite specific: As governor of Virginia, he did not rescue every condemned person from execution, even though his Catholic faith demands opposition to the death penalty. In fact, Pence used his turn to call attention to a second religious struggle of Kaine's:

I know Senator Kaine, you hold pro-life views personally — but the very idea that a child that is almost born into the world could still have their life taken from them is just anathema to me. And I cannot — I can’t conscience about — about a party that supports that. Or that — I know you’ve historically opposed taxpayer funding of abortion. But Hillary Clinton wants to — wants to repeal the longstanding provision in the law where we said we wouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

Kaine reacts, stressing that women should be "trust[ed]" to make their own decision about abortion and asserting that Donald Trump said "women should be punished, as Donald Trump said they should, for making the decision to have an abortion." (Here's my old post on exactly what Trump said and how he quickly corrected it.) Pence defended Trump and a dialogue ensued that ended with a Biblical quote:

PENCE: Donald Trump and I would never support legislation that punished women who made the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy.

KAINE: Then why did Donald Trump say that?

PENCE: We just never would.

KAINE: Why did he say that?

PENCE: Well, look, it’s — look, he’s not a polished politician like you and Hillary Clinton. And so...

KAINE: Well, I would admit that’s not a polished...

(CROSSTALK)

PENCE: You know, things don’t always come out exactly the way he means them.

KAINE: Well, can I say...

PENCE: But I’m telling you what the policy of our administration would be.

KAINE: Great line from the — great line from the gospel of Matthew. From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.

So Pence's idea was that Trump's wording some things badly is the downside of something we ought to like: He's not a career politician. Kaine's comeback is: When you're not wording things carefully, we get the advantage of seeing what you really think.

“Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

It's hard to find a translation that uses "fullness" for "abundance," but "fullness" doesn't make it much easier to understand. The New English Translation is nicely comprehensible: "For the mouth speaks from what fills the heart." If you say something, it's because that's what you mean.

That's a hard proposition to apply to politicians, since so much of what they say is not what they mean. But sometimes the truth slips out. And yet the person who is saying That time you told the truth is probably a political player, accusing you of telling the truth because it serves his interest. If you credit your opponent with telling the truth only when it helps you in your quest for worldly power, will you "on the day of judgment... be justified... [or] condemned"?

If you really believe your religion, how can you dare to participate in politics? The risk is too great.

Balancing your religious beliefs with your secular role in government requires some precision and thought--unless you're an atheist (and perhaps even then) your personal beliefs will have at least some influence on how you view your role in government. It'll shape you even when you're consciously sticking to the secular nature of your job.

What's most important though is that you understand your secular role is paramount, and if you cannot meet its requirements you shouldn't hold the job. I'd rather a president who didn't share my faith but respected and defended the constitutional protections for my faith, than a president who did agree with my beliefs and yet did not respect the constitution.

If you really believe your religion, how can you dare to participate in politics? The risk is too great.

"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

"Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves."

Anyway, as for abortion, I don't even see it as a religious issue. Either its a baby and therefore a human or it is not a baby. And from a scientific perspective, in the third trimester it is clearly a human baby.

Tim Kaine has remade his Catholic faith into his own image. The church's move away from capital punishment is not "dogmatic" as is her classification of abortion as "intrinsically evil." Capital punishment may be permitted under the same circumstances, ironically, that abortion is prohibited -- the protection of innocent life. "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2267)Contrast this with the paragraphs concerning abortion:"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law..." (CCC2271)"....Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life."(CCC2272)"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death." (CCC2273).Any lawmaker who works in support of abortion is in material cooperation with evil.

Kaine is an idiot. As a governor it was his job to carry out the laws of the state and that includes judicial executions. That has nothing to do with forcing people to pay for other people's abortions. A woman has a constitutional right to abort as the law currently stands. She doesn't a constitutional right to have someone else pay for it.

Clinton and Kaine trust women to make wise reproductive decisions? Well, at least they trust some of us, but only on certain things. Kaine also claimed that Social Security is the best program EVER -- because people are so stupid. Why, before this nifty fox-guarded, forced-savings program, "Sunday school teachers and little league coaches worked all their lives, only to retire into poverty!" Thank God and Democrats for giving us Uncle Scam.

It's a scope of understanding about the world and what makes us human, what we should value and what we should resist. Some religions orient this around a deity or deities. Some don't.

Why would anyone who isn't serious about their religion go into politics? If there's no conception of a greater good or advancement then a person doesn't have the drive to pursue it.

Every politician is serious about their religion, that which they think is promoting some version of the best. Very few politicians match their professed religion with their enacted religion. Sometimes the religion of politicians is their own self and they see the magnification of their self as the greater good for all.

Tim Kaine's view of what Catholicism demands is completely back-asswards.

I think we're long overdue for a mass excommunication (forgive the pun) of prominent pro-abortion politicians who publicly wrap themselves in the mantle of Catholicism, starting with Nancy Pelosi and including Joe Biden and Tim Kaine.

Just to give the shitheads in the San Francisco Diocese a bit of clarity.

'The New English Translation is nicely comprehensible: "For the mouth speaks from what fills the heart." If you say something, it's because that's what you mean.'

Tendentious. From the quoted context;

"You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil."

The clear significance is that one's habitual thoughts and emotions will determine the nature of one's utterances. Christ was not an early proponent of the Freudian slip.

When I was running for governor, I was attacked pretty strongly because of my position on the death penalty. But I looked the voters of Virginia in the eye and said, look, this is my religion. I’m not going to change my religious practice to get one vote, but I know how to take an oath and uphold the law. And if you elect me, I will uphold the law.

Kaine explained why, as a public servant, he should uphold imposition of the death penalty while it is the law of the land, despite his long-standing opposition and wish to change the law as guided by his Catholic religion.

Which would also explain why he'd uphold Roe v. Wade as the existing law.

But Kaine didn't explain why, as a religious person, he's against efforts to overturn Roe as he would the death penalty.

My mother was divorced and could not take communion at church. These jackholes actively participate in the killing of unborn humans and go to church loudly proclaiming their faith. They should be excommunicated but the church needs them and enjoys a closeness to power which gives them perceived power. They all need to go or the Catholic Church won't survive.

"If you really believe your religion, how can you dare to participate in politics? The risk is too great."

I take this to be a recrudescence of your view that people don't really believe what they claim to believe about religion. Why do you single out religion? Because some people claim to believe in an ultimate -- and eternal -- judgment? People are inconsistent in all manner of things. If I drink and drive, does that mean I don't believe in the lethal capacity of my automobile, or the capacity of alcohol to impair my driving? Or does it just mean that I want to get from A to B rapidly, even though I've been drinking?

The only gaffe politicians make is speaking the truth. Ergo: Trump is a gaffe filled candidate.

IMO, there are crucial moments in the courtroom or the forum when standing up and speaking the truth is worth the risk. It require a simple faith that God who gives you what to say will back you up. And nobody lives forever.

Opposition to unrestrained aboriton is not necessarily due to one's religious affiliation, if any.

And on the particular point that started this dialogue, Trump was thinking. He was asked if he thought a woman on whom an illegal abortion was performed should have a legal liability, and he thought about it for a second or so and said, of course, yes, since such a woman obviously has been accessory to a crime, even if the crime specified in the statutes is defined as performing such an abortion rather than having it done on oneself.

@timkaine doesn't want to punish anyone on abortion. Ok. How about not punishing those who don't want to pay for or perform them?

Fr. Thomas Petri, OP‏ @PetriOP.@timkaine If you believe abortion is murder, then it's not a moral choice. Abortion is not a religious issue; it's a human issue."

Kaine is just another fraud conveniently using Catholicsim as cover. (And his "Catholicism" is 40% of the reason Hillary the Hun chose him.) At best, Kaine subscribes to Liberation Theology, but I suspect deep down he eschews all theology/deities, and has elevated progressiveism as his ultimate operating ground.

The context was that the Pharisees and Sadducees openly opposed and criticized Christ, and told the public that he was of the devil. They, of course, did this because Christ threatened their positions of power. He bypassed them and didn’t affirm their standing or ratify their teachings. In other words, the Pharisees and Sadducees were the ones using words to tout how good they were and how bad Christ was. They were the master of the words - the persuaders of the public. (I.e. they were the politicians.)

But the Pharisees and Sadducees had this one little problem. Toward the end of his short ministry, Christ started openly healing people of their physical infirmities. So now the public was forked. They saw what Christ did, and heard what the Pharisees and Sadducees said, and the doing was more convincing than the talking. The Pharisees had to admit that healing a man’s deformed hand was, indeed, a good thing. But they then tried to argue that, while the healing was a good thing, the person that did the healing was a bad person.

So Christ called them on it. You can’t have it both ways. Either say the fruit is good and the tree is good, or say the fruit is bad and the tree is bad. But you can’t very well say, ‘yes, the fruit is good, but the tree is bad.’ In that entire chapter, Christ was saying, “Words don’t matter. It is what a person does that matters, and that shows you what they are.”

“How can you speak good things, when you are evil?” In other words, you condemn people who do good because they threaten your standing and power. Why should we listen to anything you say? Your corrupt heart seeks power more than the wellbeing of those around you. Everything you say is corrupted by that hear and that lust.”

So, in reality, Kaine actually made the exact wrong point. The answer should have been, “You condemn Trump for what he says. Look at what he does. He builds things. He develops. He has built a beautiful family. Has he ever ‘punished’ women for an abortion? You can fixate on words, fine! We all know that is the only thing your candidate has are words, and boy does she work them to the max. I look at what Trump does, and all the bad things you impugn to him don’t add up.”

Here is the transcript of Trump where he says women should be "punished" http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/30/context-transcript-donald-trump-punishing-women-ab/Notice how he goes out of his way to not really answer definitively HOW women should be punished.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman.

TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.

MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?

TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.

So, the idea that he is saying we should impose some draconian punishment on women for abortion is simply false. He doesn't have an answer for it. They later clarified that the doctors should be punished, not the women. So, its disingenous to say that Trumps policy is that women will be punished for havng abortions under his administration.IF the penalty was ten cents, would anyone really think it was that strict a penalty? The whole phrasing of it was meant as a gotcha, and Kaine pounced on it as if it were a definitive platform of Trumps to punish women who have abortions. How does "I dont know. I idont know" equate to "you are for punishing women who have abortions".

On a personal level, I"m ok with punishing women who have abortions. Just as I'm ok with punishing women who commit infanticide. But if Chris Matthews and Tim Kaine want to know about punishing women who commit abortions we can look to when abortions were illegal to see how women were punished. They almost never were. It was always the doctors that hwere punished, and women almost always treated like victims, just like the fetus. So, there's no reason we coudlnt go back to that model if we were to actually make abortion illegal.

The greatest politician I ever knew never held office, but did run a successful revolution. You all could use someone like that. Jaime Cardinal Sin.He didnt seem to have much trouble reconciling politics and religion.

MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law -- I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?

TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges -- I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.

MATTHEWS: I know.

TRUMP: And with the loss of (Supreme Court Justice Antonin) Scalia, who was a very strong conservative...

MATTHEWS: I understand.

TRUMP: ... this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, "what’s the law, nobody knows what the law’s going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.

"Anyway, as for abortion, I don't even see it as a religious issue. Either its a baby and therefore a human or it is not a baby. And from a scientific perspective, in the third trimester it is clearly a human baby."

THat is how I look at it. I'm not THAT religious. I dont think I've gone to a church in like five years, if it wasn't related to either a wedding or a funeral. But, your formulation is exactly how I look at the question. Is the fetus a person/human or isn't it. If it is, then does a women get to make a choice to kill it, simply because it resides in her body (because of her actions). If the fetus is just a parasite, then I wouldn't care. I generally dont tell people who have tape worms that they have no bodily autonomy and can't go see a doctor. But obvoiusly i doont view a fetus as a parasite.

When asked about her accomplishments, Hillary stated she flew a million miles as Sec. of State. Presumably the purpose of all this activity was to attend meetings were much verbiage was generated to little effect.

We are in an age of new religions, new moralities.An age where old religions are in conflict with new thinking.An age where old symbols must be destroyed.An age where old words must not be spoken.An age where abortion must be legal, free and nearly mandatory. Is this good?is this bad?One day some God may let us know.

Blogger Laslo Spatula said...Not just the religious are susceptible to corruption.They just are the ones people feel comfortable pointing out.--For better or worse, the majority of religious tend to have given written rules/standards that can be leveraged for or against them.

Kaine asked "why dont you trust women to make the right choice?" Well, if they are choosing to kill a baby and you consider that MURDER, when would you ever say a woman should have a right to make that choice? If the baby was born, and the woman was choosing whehter to suffocate the baby or keep it alive, would it be reasonable to ask "Why dont you trust women to make the right choice"? Of course not. Because we all recognize that women dont have a moral right to kill their baby just because they choose to do it. Because we are all saying that a baby has its own bodily autonomy and rights which cant be impacted on simply because a person chooses to kill them.

That is the divide. Why would a person who considers a fetus to be alive ever cede the argumen that a woman had a right to terminate the life? because, in their mind, it would be the equivalent of infanticide. Pro lifers think fetuses need to be protected, and pro choicers think they are parasites.

The pro choice argument only works if you dont value the fetus as a life. And pro lifers do value it as a life.

Yeah, if there's anything the big government Leftists are full of it's trust in the judgement of citizens and the ability of those citizens to govern their own affairs. Makes perfect sense.

I'm not Catholic so maybe it's just one of those faith mysteries I'm not capable of understanding, but declaring oneself opposed to abortion while seemingly doing everything in you're able to get people who are pro-abortion more power & influence sure seems odd.

Anyway being opposed to abortion is hateful. Love trumps hate, remember, so people who are opposed to abortion will be overcome by people who support abortion.

There is nothing so loving as trusting women to make choices with their own bodies. If those choices happen to include aborting (that is, killing a very young human/person growing within the woman's body) at any point, well, the loving thing to do is to celebrate that choice.

Jesus is love and supporting abortion is love, so it's pretty clear that if you claim to love Jesus you'd better also support abortion.

I suppose Kaine may think he is being Jesuitical, but I think he is merely being Harvardian. In any case, it does not require a Jesuit to argue this, a mere Christian Brother will do. My old lot would have set him straight in a minute.

Seriously, though, you hateful bitter clingers need to move on (.org) and just accept that abortion is here to stay. Hell, you'd better start being happy about opening you wallets to pay for abortions, since after all abortions are part of "women's health" and only a hateful misogynist opposes free healthcare for women. No wonder Republicans lose national elections--their supporters are so disgustingly filled with hate! I mean, look at them--some of them spout nonsense like "abortion is morally wrong!" and try to shame women by questioning the morality of a choice a woman might make. Disgusting! It's disgusting to even have an opinion and it's terribly offensive to dare to express such an opinion--in public no less. Ugly, truly ugly.

Now Donald Trump is probably the most pro-gay and pro-abortion Republican to run for President in my lifetime, right? But strangely--and gee this is bizarre--the Media doesn't give him any credit for this and in fact the Republicans are still being attacked as anti-woman and anti-gay. Isn't that just inexplicable?

I mean, the Media and the Left complained that ol' Mitt Romney hated women, hated gays, etc, and everyone bought that--he was one of those weirdo Mormons after all, and he was a conservative-seeming white guy, so naturally he must secretly hate women & gays.

But Trump, you know, he's definitely not conservative and he doesn't have strong religious ties or anything that would give credence to the suggestion that he hates gays or strongly opposes abortion. He definitely hasn't campaigned on opposing abortion and as far as I know has proposed exactly nothing having to do with restricting abortion rights.

Even with this guy, though, the Media & Left attack. It's almost like it doesn't matter what the Republican candidate says or does, or how thoroughly the Republicans surrender on social issues--the Media will still cast the Republicans as evil and backward. Weird.

It sounds like Pence just needed to be more explicit in rejecting the premise of the question.

For some time now the left has been trying to establish that faith and political action are in tension, so that anyone entering the political arena has to check their faith at the door. This is of course nonsense (everyone enters that arena with values, some formed by religious belief and some by secular views) but it serves their purpose since many preferred progressive policies are anti-religion and they need to make them seem neutral.

The Church has always been against abortion. It's not mentioned in the NT because it wasn't a controversial position by the earliest Christians. Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things that he agreed with in the Jewish tradition of his time.

There's still debate about the death penalty and while recent popes have been against it, and the trend in Catholic theology is to oppose it, there's not an official prohibition that I know about. I might be wrong about that. Clearly, if there is, it is relatively recent. And most other Christian denominations likewise do not have a settled ethic for capital punishment.

Christian ethics distinguishes between innocent and guilty life, not unlike the thief on the cross with Jesus.

Catholic faith does not require one to oppose the death penalty - just ask Scalia:

"I am therefore happy to learn from the canonical experts I have consulted that the position set forth in Evangelium Vitae and in the latest version of the Catholic catechism does not purport to be binding teaching—that is, it need not be accepted by practicing Catholics, though they must give it thoughtful and respectful consideration....So I have given this new position thoughtful and careful consideration—and I disagree. That is not to say I favor the death penalty (I am judicially and judiciously neutral on that point); it is only to say that I do not find the death penalty immoral."

Let's see, abortion of a human life that commits abortion (i.e. capital punishment) versus abortion of a disarmed, wholly innocent human life for causes of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence (i.e. elective abortion). As well as a demand that women should remain available as taxable, serviceable, and democratic commodities. Then there is the State-established Pro-Choice (i.e. selective/opportunistic principles) quasi-religion that has been a gateway ideology to clinical cannibalism (Planned Parenthood et al), [class] diversity, progressive wars, mass emigration, etc.

It must be noted that selective-child differs from one-child in that the former reflects a pro-choice quasi-religious/moral philosophy in the general population while the latter was largely contained within the Party. The progress of the Pro-Choice Church, and its diverse minority membership, requires special treatment because of the large numbers involved that have lead to the corruption of religion, science, culture, government, health care, etc.

The Pro-Choice Church is an institution that is objectively more corrupt and dysfunctional than the institutions of [class] diversity and involuntary exploitation that preceded it and followed it. Unqualified progress.

Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things that he agreed with in the Jewish tradition of his time.

While the historical rabbinic teachings on abortion are definitely post-NT, it is surprising how hard-ass they are, especially considering the that modern Jews tend to be strongly pro-choice.

Do the rabbinic teachings have more acceptance of abortion for health of the mother than e.g. Catholic case law & doctrine? Yes, but with the consultation & agreement of the husband & rabbi. It ain't abortion on demand by any stretch. And here's where the rabbis get even more hard-ass than Catholic case law. In the Rabbinic tradition, once the head or majority of the baby has exited the birth canal, the child has an equal claim to life as the mother.** That sure ain't the case in Catholic casuistry.

** Just so you know I ain't making this up:

Abortion is permitted if the fetus endangers the mother's life. Thus, "if a woman travails to give birth [and it is feared she may die], one may sever the fetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his" (Oho. 7:6). This is the case only as long as the fetus has not emerged into the world, when it is not a life at all and "it may be killed and the mother saved" (Rashi and Meiri, Sanh. 72b). But, from the moment that the greater part of the fetus has emerged into the world – either its head only, or its greater part – it may not be touched, even if it endangers the mother's life: "ein doḥin nefesh mi-penei nefesh" ("one may not reject one life to save another" – Oho. and Sanh. ibid.). Even though one is enjoined to save a person who is being pursued, if necessary by killing the pursuer (see Penal Law ), the law distinguishes between a fetus which has emerged into the world and a "pursuer," since "she [the mother] is pursued from heaven" (Sanh. 72b) and moreover, "such is the way of the world" (Maim., Yad, Roẓe'aḥ 1:9) and "one does not know whether the fetus is pursuing the mother, or the mother the fetus" (TJ Sanh. 8:9, 26c). However, when the mother's life is endangered, she herself may destroy the fetus – even if its greater part has emerged – "for even if in the eyes of others the law of a fetus is not as the law of a pursuer, the mother may yet regard the fetus as pursuing her" (Meiri, ibid.).

Unlike the Pro-Choice quasi-religion, Christianity (and Judaism) recognizes two principled exceptions: self-defense and capital punishment. The former when a life is at immediate risk, and the latter once the status of an abortionist is established.

From a scientific perspective (i.e. limited frame of reference in both time and space), a human life unequivocally begins at conception. From a Christian perspective, a human life begins at inception which corresponds with the expression of the spirit in its corporal shell.

That said, unlike one-child, the selective-child doctrine of the Pro-Choice Church reflects a diverse minority's reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives. Unfortunately, in order to avoid a second national conflict, this precludes a quick resolution of abortion rites as a final solution.

Aren't both Kaine and his running mate, the Dowager Empress, both products of that trifecta of superstition, the Social Gospel? Even if they weren't, they're certainly State-cultists, a secular form of theocracy. When it comes to choosing between a Republican theocrat and a Democratic theocrat, I choose the one whose most going to leave me alone.

Only very occasionally does the demands of your political position directly conflict with the demands of your faith. Should such an occasion arise, the person of integrity will choose faith and resign. Kaine choose political expediency. He believes abortion is murder but supports continuing it for the sake of his career. There are few evils greater than that.

" but he does scare women off of pregnancy." In all my years of studying the Bible, I have never heard or read that interpretation of that verse. Jesus was talking about the Great Tribulation.It is always dangerous to quote a single verse without knowing the full context upon which it was made . I am sure you wouldn't let one of your students get away with that when it comes to constitutional law.

It's important to note that Catholic theology does NOT mandate opposition to the death penalty. While recent leadership and emphasis has been to move away from it, it has always been recognized as a legitimate option for a state to employ in the pursuit of justice, just as war remains a legitimate option under just war criteria.

There isn't a stateside Catholic bishop with the guts to say it, but support for abortion is heretical. Procuring, performing, or helping one to obtain an abortion automatically excommunicates in Catholic Canon Law. This is the only secular act for which a penalty of this severity exists. That may not be relevant to US politics except insofar as it's another example of politicians ignoring law they find inconvenient and having a fix in with corrupt bishops who protect them while the common laity get no such exemption (although unlike with the FBI, politicians are likely to discover to their horror that bishops and good press cannot shield them from Judgment in the end).

Politics probably isn't a good career for a religious person to pursue nowadays, mainly because the people themselves seem to prefer politicians who will lie to them and promise them the most goodies over politicians who try to do the right thing. It shouldn't be surprising that when the people's approach to politics is to get theirs, they get duplicitous politicians who are also in it for themselves.